Shrilljoy

I'm shrill.

Some of my best friends are shrill.

As the tastemakers and trendspotters might say, "shrill is the new black," and I'm proud to be on the cutting edge.

But just what is "shrill" anyway?

Here's what dictionary.com has to say on shrill:

1. High-pitched and piercing in tone or sound: the shrill wail of a siren.
2. Producing a sharp, high-pitched tone or sound: a shrill fife.
3. Sharp or keen to the senses; harshly vivid: shrill colors.

That's a fine definition, but it's only a starting point for a word that is loaded with additional connotation, and can be rhetorically lethal  if applied by a deft practicioner of bo tai pun dit, the art of deflecting argument from substance to style (I'm a green belt myself).

Here's an additional definition to enhance our understanding of the nuances:

4. An adjective that serves as a concise and readily understood ad hominem argument which erodes the truth value of a statement without changing the underlying facts. This tactic is typically employed by those who fear losing power against those who appear to be gaining it rather unexpectedly:  The people who question our policies and practices are shrill.

So we have a denotation that has to do with tone and intensity, and a connotation that has to do with implied credibility of someone delivering a shrill message. To see how they both work, let's look at shrillness in action:

Imagine you and a friend are walking through the woods. As you round a turn in the trail, you think you hear a dry buzzing sound.  Just then, you notice a scaly, sausage-shaped object coiling itself on the path directly in front of your friend's foot. In this situation, do you say:

A) "An apparent crotaline ophidian, which appears to be in your projected perambulatory path, is exhibiting signs of agitation and may be preparing to deliver a defensive dose of toxin. Please exercise all requisite caution in proceeding."

OR...

B) "HEY, don't step on that f*cking rattlesnake!!!"

Example B is shrill, Example A is not. Example B, like the aforementioned wailing siren, is designed to get your friend's attention with the minimum amount of extraneous detail. No attempt is made to sugarcoat the message or make it easier on the nerves. There is no diplomacy in an alarm. An alarm is a call to action, not an invitation to mull over alternative interpretations.

Could there be alternative interpretations?

Of course.

For example, the coiled rattling thingy might have been a non-venomous snake rustling leaves with its tail, or perhaps a ferret attempting to escape a bicycle inner tube, or maybe even an enchanted, dancing, maraca-wielding kielbasa that would have granted you and your friend three wishes. But to you, it resembled a rattlesnake, so you assumed that's what it was. Why? Because the risk of assuming it was a magical sausage was too great given the circumstances. If you had more time to assess the information and more options for approaching the problem (wider path, advance notice, etc.) your response may have been far less shrill.

What conclusions can we draw from this example? First, it should be apparent that the shrillness of a message has no relationship to its accuracy. An increased urgency of tone or clarity of expression cannot make what is true untrue, or vice versa. The sky may be falling or the sky may not be falling, but how you say it doesn’t change the facts. Tone is really about the message behind the message. This brings me to the second point, which is that the shrillness of a message is directly proportional to the sense of urgency, and the perceived awareness of the message recipient. The more pressed for time the communicator feels, the shriller the message. The more disengaged the audience seems to be, the shriller the message. We are bombarded with so many messages every day, that only those with the ability to grab and hold our attention will make it through all of the filters.  Finally, you can conclude that any post of mine that has no pictures and lots of rhetorical questions may be your clue to stop reading after the first paragraph.

I am very shrill in my presentation of both the facts and my personal opinions about the Atlantic Yards Proposal. This should be expected given the path this project has taken to date – no oversight, no accountability and the need for speed. I think the stakes are high because:

• It’s the biggest single developer project in New York City history.
• It will be the densest residential tract in the entire U.S., twice as dense as the current density record holder.
• It asks for at least $1 billion in taxpayer subsidies.
• It will permanently block streets that are currently open.
• It will add automobiles to the streets.
• It will add burden to our infrastructure.
• It will change the character and function of the adjacent neighborhoods forever.
• It requires the use of eminent domain to transfer property from individual homeowners to a multi-billion dollar development corporation.
• The stated measurable benefits (jobs, housing) keep changing. Mostly, the numbers are revised downward.
• There will be no chance of a "do-over" if it fails, and taxpayers will be holding the bag
• The process itself may become the de facto model for all future development

Frankly, the last two points are the ones  I'm personally most worried about. In my opinion, the underlying process for bringing this project from concept to groundbreaking is incredibly dysfunctional. We must have a process that brings all affected stakeholders to the table if public funds, public lands and exemptions to the normal rules are granted to the developer. We can't afford for AY to be the development precedent for the next decade.

My opposition is based on self-interest, and it is definitely shrill, but I'm not about to change my tone just because the developer is spending millions of PR dollars to apply the "shrill" label to project critics.

My goal isn't to be diplomatic.  My goal is to  sound the alarm.

Careful Brooklyn! You're about to step on an enchanted kielbasa!

Comments

[alan rosner]

here's one for your shrill list:

* It will change forever Brooklyn's risk profile - and thus insurance costs & availability - by concentrating 3 Dept of Homeland Security terror targets in the country's densest ever development: a glass arena & a glass office tower above an urban transportation hub - one that was the target of 2 suicide bombers in 1997.

quite the hat trick mr. ratner

alan

[Dope]

the old-fashioned claptrap of denouncing any strident-voiced woman over the age of 30 as "shrew" and "harridan."

On the shrill-o-meter (1-100 pts.), if you're speaking truth to power, you get an automatic plus 50 points. If you're a woman, you double it.

Usually, it's Shill vs. Shrill.

[Walter Dufresne]

The p.r. industry's use of "shrill" reminds me of the old-fashioned claptrap of denouncing any strident-voiced woman over the age of 30 as "shrew" and "harridan."

New century, same old feces.

[oscar meyer]

Please dump some kraut and mustard on the whole thing to smother it.